Related Articles

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a treatment for gastric neoplasms and usually requires deep sedation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles of deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion with or without midazolam during ESD.

Methods

A total of 135 patients scheduled for ESDs between December 2008 and June 2010 were included in this prospective study and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the propofol group or the combination group (propofol plus midazolam).

Results

The propofol group reported only one case of severe hypoxemia with no need of mask ventilation or intubation. Additionally, 18 cases of mild hypotension were observed in the propofol group, and 11 cases were observed in the combination group. The combination group had a lower mean total propofol dose (378 mg vs 466 mg, p<0.012), a longer mean recovery time (10.5 minutes vs 7.9 minutes, p=0.027), and a lower frequency of overall adverse events (32.8% vs 17.6%, p=0.042).

Conclusions

Deep sedation induced by continuous propofol infusion was shown to be safe during ESD. The combination of continuous propofol infusion and intermittent midazolam injection can decrease the total dose and infusion rate of propofol and the overall occurrence of adverse events.

Background/Aims

Propofol induced sedation with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring has been reported to lead to higher satisfaction in patients and endoscopists during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. There are no data, however, regarding the efficacy of midazolam and meperidine (M/M) induced sedation with BIS monitoring during ESD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether M/M induced sedation with BIS monitoring could improve satisfaction and reduce the dose of M/M required during ESD.

Methods

Between September 2009 and January 2010, 56 patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to a BIS group (n=28) and a non-BIS group (n=28). Patient and endoscopist satisfaction scores were assessed using the visual analog scale (0 to 100) following the ESD.

Results

The mean satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between the BIS and non-BIS groups (92.3±16.3 vs 93.3±15.5, p=0.53) or endoscopists (83.1±15.4 vs 80.0±16.7, p=0.52). Although the mean meperidine dose did not differ (62.5±27.6 vs 51.0±17.3, p=0.18) between the two groups, the mean dose of midazolam in the non-BIS group was lower than in the BIS group (6.8±2.0 vs 5.4±2.1, p=0.01).

Conclusions

BIS monitoring during ESD did not increase the satisfaction of endoscopists or patients and did not lead to an M/M dose reduction. These results demonstrate that BIS monitoring provides no additional benefit to M/M induced sedation during ESD.

This study aimed to compare continuous intravenous infusion combinations of propofol-remifentanil and propofol-ketamine for deep sedation for surgical extraction of all 4 third molars. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled study, participants received 1 of 2 sedative combinations for deep sedation for the surgery. Both groups initially received midazolam 0.03 mg/kg for baseline sedation. The control group then received a combination of propofol-remifentanil in a ratio of 10 mg propofol to 5 μg of remifentanil per milliliter, and the experimental group received a combination of propofol-ketamine in a ratio of 10 mg of propofol to 2.5 mg of ketamine per milliliter; both were given at an initial propofol infusion rate of 100 μg/kg/min. Each group received an induction loading bolus of 500 μg/kg of the assigned propofol combination along with the appropriate continuous infusion combination . Measured outcomes included emergence and recovery times, various sedation parameters, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, patient and surgeon satisfaction, postoperative course, and associated drug costs. Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in the study. Both groups demonstrated similar sedation parameters and hemodynamic and respiratory stability; however, the ketamine group had prolonged emergence (13.6 ± 6.6 versus 7.1 ± 3.7 minutes, P = .0009) and recovery (42.9 ± 18.7 versus 24.7 ± 7.6 minutes, P = .0004) times. The prolonged recovery profile of continuously infused propofol-ketamine may limit its effectiveness as an alternative to propofol-remifentanil for deep sedation for third molar extraction and perhaps other short oral surgical procedures, especially in the ambulatory dental setting.

AIM: To determine whether bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is useful for propofol administration for deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients with a variety of reasons for ERCP who underwent the procedure at least twice between 1 July 2010 and 30 November 2010. This was a randomized cross-over study, in which each patient underwent ERCP twice, once with BIS monitoring and once with control monitoring. Whether BIS monitoring was done during the first or second ERCP procedure was random. Patients were intermittently administered a mixed regimen including midazolam, pethidine, and propofol by trained nurses. The nurse used a routine practice to monitor sedation using the Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale or the BIS monitoring. The total amount of midazolam and propofol used and serious side effects were compared between the BIS and control groups.

RESULTS: The mean total propofol dose administered was 53.1 ± 32.2 mg in the BIS group and 54.9 ± 30.8 mg in the control group (P = 0.673). The individual propofol dose received per minute during the ERCP procedure was 2.90 ± 1.83 mg/min in the BIS group and 3.44 ± 2.04 mg in the control group (P = 0.103). The median value of the MOAA/S score during the maintenance phase of sedation was comparable for the two groups. The mean BIS values throughout the procedure (from insertion to removal of the endoscope) were 76.5 ± 8.7 for all 59 patients in using the BIS monitor. No significant differences in the frequency of < 80% oxygen saturation, hypotension (< 80 mmHg), or bradycardia (< 50 beats/min) were observed between the two study groups. Four cases of poor cooperation occurred, in which the procedure should be stopped to add the propofol dose. After adding the propofol, the procedure could be conducted successfully (one case in the BIS group, three cases in the control group). The endoscopist rated patient sedation as excellent for all patients in both groups. All patients in both groups rated their level of satisfaction as high (no discomfort). During the post-procedural follow-up in the recovery area, no cases of clinically significant hypoxic episodes were recorded in either group. No other postoperative side effects related to sedation were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION: BIS monitoring trend to slighlty reduce the mean propofol dose. Nurse-administered propofol sedation under the supervision of a gastroenterologist may be considered an alternative under anesthesiologist.

Summary

Regional anaesthesia has become an important anaesthetic technique. Effective sedation is an essential for regional techniques too. This study compares midazolam and propofol in terms of onset & recovery from sedation, dosage and side effects of both the drugs using Bispectral Index monitoring. Ninety eight patients were randomly divided into two groups,one group recieved midazolam infusion while the other recieved propofol infusion until BIS reached 75. We observed Time to reach desired sedation, HR, MABP, time for recovery, dose to reach sedation and for maintenance of sedation and side effects if any. The time to reach required sedation was 11 min in Midazolam group(Group I) while it was 6 min in Propofol group(Group II) (p=0.0). Fall in MABP was greater with propofol. Recovery in with midazolam was slower than with propofol (18.6 ± 6.5 vs 10.10±3.65 min) (p=0.00). We concluded that both midazolam and propofol are effective sedatives, but onset and offset was quicker with propofol, while midazolam was more cardiostable.

Background

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation is increasingly performed in elderly patients, data on combined sedation with midazolam/propofol are very limited for this age group.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 454 endoscopic procedures in 347 hospitalized patients ≥ 70 years who had received combined sedation with midazolam/propofol. 513 endoscopic procedures in 397 hospitalized patients < 70 years during the observation period served as controls. Characteristics of endoscopic procedures, co-morbidity, complications and mortality were compared.

Results

Elderly patients had a higher level of co-morbidity and needed lower mean propofol doses for sedation. We observed no major complication and no difference in the number of minor complications. The procedure-associated mortality was 0%; the 28-day mortality was significantly higher in the elderly (2.9% vs. 1.0%).

Conclusions

In this study on elderly patients with high level co-morbidity, a favourable safety profile was observed for a combined sedation with midazolam/propofol with a higher sensitivity to propofol in the elderly.

Propofol (2,6,di-isopropylphenol) was given by continuous intravenous infusion to provide sedation after cardiac surgery in 30 patients and its effects compared with those of midazolam given to a further 30 patients. Propofol infusion allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation, which was satisfactory for longer than with midazolam. Patients given propofol recovered significantly more rapidly from their sedation once they had fulfilled the criteria for weaning from artificial ventilation and as a result spent a significantly shorter time attached to a ventilator. There were no serious complications in either group. Both medical and nursing staff considered the propofol infusion to be superior to midazolam in these patients. These findings suggest that propofol is a suitable replacement for etomidate and alphaxalone-alphadolone for sedating patients receiving intensive care.

AIM: To characterize the profiles of alveolar hypoventilation during colonoscopies performed under sedoanalgesia with a combination of alfentanil and either midazolam or propofol.

METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to sedation with either propofol or midazolam in an open-labeled design using a titration scheme. All patients received 4 μg/kg per body weight alfentanil for analgesia and 3 L of supplemental oxygen. Oxygen saturation (SpO2) was measured by pulse oximetry (POX), and capnography (PcCO2) was continuously measured using a combined dedicated sensor at the ear lobe. Instances of apnea resulting in measures such as stimulation of the patient, a chin lift, a mask maneuver, or withholding of sedation were recorded. PcCO2 values (as a parameter of sedation-induced hypoventilation) were compared between groups at the following distinct time points: baseline, maximal rise, termination of the procedure and 5 min after termination of the procedure. The number of patients in both study groups who regained baseline PcCO2 values (± 1.5 mmHg) five minutes after the procedure was determined.

RESULTS: A total of 97 patients entered this study. The data from 14 patients were subsequently excluded for clinical procedure-related reasons or for technical problems. Therefore, 83 patients (mean age 62 ± 13 years) were successfully randomized to receive propofol (n = 42) or midazolam (n = 41) for sedation. Most of the patients were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II [16 (38%) in the midazolam group and 15 (32%) in the propofol group] and ASA III [14 (33%) and 13 (32%) in the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively]. A mean dose of 5 (4-7) mg of IV midazolam and 131 (70-260) mg of IV propofol was used during the procedure in the corresponding study arms. The mean SpO2 at baseline (%) was 99 ± 1 for the midazolam group and 99 ± 1 for the propofol group. No cases of hypoxemia (SpO2 < 85%) or apnea were recorded. However, an increase in PcCO2 that indicated alveolar hypoventilation occurred in both groups after administration of the first drug and was not detected with pulse oximetry alone. The mean interval between the initiation of sedation and the time when the PcCO2 value increased to more than 2 mmHg was 2.8 ± 1.3 min for midazolam and 2.8 ± 1.1 min for propofol. The mean maximal rise was similar for both drugs: 8.6 ± 3.7 mmHg for midazolam and 7.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for propofol. Five minutes after the end of the procedure, the mean difference from the baseline values was significantly lower for the propofol treatment compared with midazolam (0.9 ± 3.0 mmHg vs 4.3 ± 3.7 mmHg, P = 0.0000169), and significantly more patients in the propofol group had regained their baseline value ± 1.5 mmHg (32 of 41 vs 12 of 42, P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION: A significantly higher number of patients sedated with propofol had normalized PcCO2 values five minutes after sedation when compared with patients sedated with midazolam.

AIM: To compare the endomicroscopic image quality of integrated confocal laser endomicroscopy (iCLE) and sedation efficacy of propofol vs midazolam plus fentanyl (M/F).

METHODS: Consecutive outpatients undergoing iCLE were prospectively recruited and randomized to the propofol group (P group) or M/F group. The patient, performing endoscopist and endoscopic assistant were blinded to the randomization. The quality of endomicroscopic images and anesthetic efficacy outcomes were blindly evaluated after iCLE examination.

RESULTS: There were significantly more good quality endomicroscopic images in the propofol group than in the M/F group (72.75% vs 52.89%, P < 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy for upper gastrointestinal mucosal lesions using confocal laser endomicroscopy favors the P group, although this did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events and patient assessment were not significantly different for M/F vs propofol except for more frequent intraprocedural recall with M/F. Procedure duration and sedation times were significantly longer in the M/F group, while the scores of endoscopist, anesthetist and assistant assessment were all significantly better in the P group.

CONCLUSION: Sedation with propofol might increase the proportion of good quality endomicroscopic images, and may result in improved procedural efficacy and diagnostic accuracy during iCLE examination.

Background

ERCP practically requires moderate to deep sedation controlled by a combination of benzodiazepine and opiod. Propofol as a sole agent may cause oversedation. A combination (cocktail) of infused propofol, meperidine, and midazolam can reduce the dosage of propofol and we hypothesized that it might decrease the risk of oversedation. We prospectively compare the efficacy, recovery time, patient satisfactory, and side effects between cocktail and conventional sedations in patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

ERCP patients were randomized into 2 groups; the cocktail group (n = 103) and the controls (n = 102). For induction, a combination of 25 mg of meperidine and 2.5 mg of midazolam were administered in both groups. In the cocktail group, a bolus dose of propofol 1 mg/kg was administered and continuously infused. In the controls, 25 mg of meperidine or 2.5 mg/kg of midazolam were titrated to maintain the level of sedation.

Results

In the cocktail group, the average administration rate of propofol was 6.2 mg/kg/hr. In the control group; average weight base dosage of meperidine and midazolam were 1.03 mg/kg and 0.12 mg/kg, respectively. Recovery times and patients’ satisfaction scores in the cocktail and control groups were 9.67 minutes and 12.89 minutes (P = 0.045), 93.1and 87.6 (P <0.001), respectively. Desaturation rates in the cocktail and conventional groups were 58.3% and 31.4% (P <0.001), respectively. All desaturations were corrected with temporary oxygen supplementation without the need for scope removal.

Conclusions

Cocktail sedation containing propofol provides faster recovery time and better patients’ satisfaction for patients undergoing ERCP. However, mild degree of desaturation may still develop.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01540084

AIM: To investigate whether endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be safely performed at small clinics, such as the Shirakawa Clinic.

METHODS: One thousand forty-seven ESDs to treat gastrointestinal tumors were performed at the Shirakawa Clinic from April 2006 to March 2011. The efficacy, technical feasibility and associated complications of the procedures were assessed. The ESD procedures were performed by five endoscopists. Sedation was induced with propofol for esophagogastorduodenal ESD.

RESULTS: One thousand forty-seven ESDs were performed to treat 64 patients with esophageal cancer (E), 850 patients with gastric tumors (G: 764 patients with cancer, 82 patients with adenomas and four others), four patients with duodenal cancer (D) and 129 patients with colorectal tumors (C: 94 patients with cancer, 21 patients with adenomas and 14 others). The en bloc resection rate was 94.3% (E: 96.9%, G: 95.8%, D: 100%, C: 79.8%). The median operation time was 46 min (range: 4-360 min) and the mean size of the resected specimens was 18 mm (range: 2-150 mm). No mortal complications were observed in association with the ESD procedures. Perforation occurred in 12 cases (1.1%, E: 1 case, G: 9 cases, D: 1 case, C: 1 case) and postoperative bleeding occurred in 53 cases (5.1%, G: 51 cases, D: 1 case, C: 1 case); however, no case required either emergency surgery or blood transfusion. All of the perforations and postperative bleedings were resolved by endoscopic clipping or hemostasis. The other problematic complication observed was pneumonia, which was treated with conservative therapy.

CONCLUSION: ESD can be safely performed in a clinic with established therapeutic methods and medical services to address potential complications.

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a small dose of midazolam and lessening the propofol dosage could prevent cardiovascular change at tracheal intubation for induction in aged patients.

Methods

Eighty patients over 65 years (ASA physical status 1, 2) scheduled for elective surgery received general anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol or midazolam. Patients in group P (n = 40) were induced with 0.9% NaCl 0.03 ml/kg, propofol 1. 2 mg/kg and remifentanil. Patients in group MP (n = 40) were induced with midazolam 0.03 mg/kg, propofol 0.8 mg/kg and remifentanil. The time taken to reach loss of consciousness (LOC) and the value of bispectral index score (BIS) at LOC were recorded. After LOC, 0.8 mg/kg of rocuronium was given and tracheal intubation was performed. The mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded before induction as the base value, before intubation, immediately post-intubation and 3 minutes after intubation.

Results

Compared with the base values, MBP at before intubation and 3 minutes after intubation was significantly decreased in group P and group MP (P < 0.05). Compared with group P, the decrease of MBP was significantly less at before intubation, immediately after intubation and 3 minutes after intubation in group MP (P < 0.05). The time taken to reach LOC was significantly decreased in group MP compared with that in group P (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences of HR at any time between the two groups.

Conclusions

Co-induction with midazolam and propofol could prevent a marked BP decrease at tracheal intubation for induction in aged patients.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the total propofol dose (mg/kg) for non-emergent pediatric procedural sedation and evaluate dosing differences with regard to a patient's sex, age, and body mass index. Adverse events were recorded and evaluated to determine whether certain patient groups were at a higher risk than others.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective observational pilot study including patients 0 to 18 years of age admitted between January 2008 and November 2009 for non-emergent gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures or radiologic imaging, who received propofol for procedural sedation. Data gathered included sex, age, height, weight, chronic medical conditions and medication use, concomitant anesthetic gas, preprocedure midazolam, procedure length, propofol dose in mg/kg, other medications administered during procedure, and adverse events that occurred. Comparisons between adverse event groups and categories of baseline characteristics were made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric and Pearson's chisquare tests, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean dose of propofol required for female patients was 3.7 mg/kg versus 3.4 mg/kg for males (p=0.3). The mean dose of propofol for patients ≤9 years, 10 to 12 years, and >12 years was 3.2, 3.9, and 3.9 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.25). The mean dose of propofol for underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese patients was 4.2, 3.9, 3.6, and 2.6 mg/kg, respectively (p=0.38). Hypotension occurred in 42.6% of patients, and bradycardia occurred in 13.9% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in dose requirements based on sex or age. The difference in dosing between different body weight categories was not statistically significant. The dose of propofol was higher in patients that experienced bradycardia and hypotension, but there was no statistical significance. Given the above, future studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to establish if statistical significance exists.

Objectives

There are safety issues associated with propofol use for flexible bronchoscopy (FB). The bispectral index (BIS) correlates well with the level of consciousness. The aim of this study was to show that BIS-guided propofol infusion is safe and may provide better sedation, benefiting the patients and bronchoscopists.

Methods

After administering alfentanil bolus, 500 patients were randomized to either propofol infusion titrated to a BIS level of 65-75 (study group) or incremental midazolam bolus based on clinical judgment to achieve moderate sedation. The primary endpoint was safety, while the secondary endpoints were recovery time, patient tolerance, and cooperation.

Results

The proportion of patients with hypoxemia or hypotensive events were not different in the 2 groups (study vs. control groups: 39.9% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.340; 7.4% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.159, respectively). The mean lowest blood pressure was lower in the study group. Logistic regression revealed male gender, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and electrocautery were associated with hypoxemia, whereas lower propofol dose for induction was associated with hypotension in the study group. The study group had better global tolerance (p<0.001), less procedural interference by movement or cough (13.6% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001; 30.0% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.001, respectively), and shorter time to orientation and ambulation (11.7±10.2 min vs. 29.7±26.8 min, p<0.001; 30.0±18.2 min vs. 55.7±40.6 min, p<0.001, respectively) compared to the control group.

Conclusions

BIS-guided propofol infusion combined with alfentanil for FB sedation provides excellent patient tolerance, with fast recovery and less procedure interference.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00789815

Background

State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.

Method/Design

This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.

Discussion

This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.

Trial registration

EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144

Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

This study attempted to determine if sevoflurane in oxygen inhaled via a nasal hood as a sole sedative agent would provide an appropriate level of deep sedation for outpatient third molar surgery. Twenty-four patients scheduled for third molar removal were randomly assigned to receive either nasal hood inhalation sevoflurane or an intravenous deep sedation using midazolam and fentanyl followed by a propofol infusion. In addition to measuring patient, surgeon, and dentist anesthesiologist subjective satisfaction with the technique, physiological parameters, amnesia, and psychomotor recovery were also assessed. No statistically significant difference was found between the sevoflurane and midazolam-fentanyl-propofol sedative groups in physiological parameters, degree of amnesia, reported quality of sedation, or patient willingness to again undergo a similar deep sedation. A trend toward earlier recovery in the sevoflurane group was identified. Sevoflurane can be successfully employed as a deep sedative rather than a general anesthetic for extraction of third molars in healthy subjects.

Introduction and aims. Balanced propofol sedation (BPS) administered by gastroenterologists has gained popularity in endoscopic procedures. Few studies exist about the safety of this approach during endosonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We assessed the safety of BPS in EUS-FNA. Materials and methods. 112 consecutive patients, referred to our unit to perform EUS-FNA, from February 2008 to December 2009, were sedated with BPS. A second gastroenterologist administered the drugs and monitorized the patient. Results. All the 112 patients (62 males, mean age 58.35) completed the examination. The mean dose of midazolam and propofol was, respectively, of 2.1 mg (range 1–4 mg) and 350 mg (range 180–400). All patients received oxygen with a mean flux of 4 liter/minute (range 2–6 liters/minute). The mean recovery time after procedure was 25 minutes (range 18–45 minutes). No major complications related to sedation were registered during all procedures. The oxygen saturation of all patients never reduced to less than 85%. Blood systolic pressure during and after the procedure never reduced to less than 100 mmHg. Conclusions. In our experience BPS administered by non-anaesthesiologists provided safe and successful sedation in patients undergoing EUS-FNA.

The death of a patient under sedation in New South Wales, Australia, in 2002 has again raised the question of the safety of dental sedation. This study sought answers to 2 questions: Can safe oxygen saturation levels (≥94%) be consistently maintained by a single operator/sedationist? Does the additional use of propofol, in subanesthetic doses, increase the risk of exposure to hypoxemia? Three thousand five hundred cases generated between 1996 and 2006 were randomly examined and divided into 2 subcohorts: 1750 patients were sedated with midazolam and fentanyl, and 1750 patients received propofol, in subanesthetic increments, in addition to midazolam and fentanyl. Initial sedation was established using midazolam and fentanyl in both subcohorts. The second subcohort received propofol during times of noxious stimulation. Patient exposure to 2 or more oxygen desaturations below 94% was uncommon. The variables that were significantly associated with low saturations were age, gender, and weight. Neither the dose of midazolam nor the additional use of propofol was a significant risk factor. ASA classification (I or II) was not a determinant of risk. The data, within the limitations of the study, showed that a single operator/sedationist, supported by a well-trained team of nurses, can consistently maintain safe oxygen saturation levels. The additional use of propofol did not increase exposure to hypoxemia.

A 62-year-old man visited our clinic for dental implantation under intravenous sedation. He demonstrated increased psychomotor activity and incomprehensible verbal contact during intravenous sedation. Although delirium caused by midazolam or propofol in different patients has been reported, the present case represents a delirium that developed from both drugs in the same patient, possibly because of the patient's smaller tolerance to midazolam and propofol.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of a balanced approach using midazolam in combination with propofol, administered by non-anesthesiologists, in a large series of diagnostic colonoscopies.

METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy were sedated with a single dose of midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) and low-dose propofol (starter bolus of 0.5 mg/kg and repeated boluses of 10 to 20 mg). Induction time and deepest level of sedation, adverse and serious adverse events, as well as recovery times, were prospectively assessed. Cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates were also collected.

RESULTS: Overall, 1593 eligible patients were included. The median dose of propofol administered was 70 mg (range: 40-120 mg), and the median dose of midazolam was 2.3 mg (range: 2-4 mg). Median induction time of sedation was 3 min (range: 1-4 min), and median recovery time was 23 min (range: 10-40 min). A moderate level of sedation was achieved in 1561 (98%) patients, whilst a deep sedation occurred in 32 (2%) cases. Transient oxygen desaturation requiring further oxygen supplementation occurred in 8 (0.46%; 95% CI: 0.2%-0.8%) patients. No serious adverse event was observed. Cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates were 93.5% and 23.4% (27.8% for male and 18.5% for female, subjects), respectively.

CONCLUSION: A balanced sedation protocol provided a minimalization of the dose of propofol needed to target a moderate sedation for colonoscopy, resulting in a high safety profile for non-anesthesiologist propofol sedation.

AIM

To compare the effect of propofol versus urapidil on hemodynamics and intraocular pressure during anesthesia and extubation for ophthalmic patients.

METHODS

Eighty-two surgical patients (Class: ASA I-II) were randomly assigned to propofol (n=41) and urapidil groups (n=41). Their gender, age, body mass, operation time and dosage of anesthetics had no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The patients of propofol and urapidil groups were given propofol (1.5mg/kg) and urapidil (2.5mg/kg) respectively; and two drugs were all diluted with normal saline to 8mL. Then the drugs were given to patients by slow intravenous injection. After treatment, the patients were conducted immediate suction, tracheal extubation, and then patients wore oxygen masks for 10 minutes. By double-blind methods, before the induction medication, at the suction, and 5, 10 minutes after the extubation, we recorded the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), pH, PaO2, PaCO2, SaO2 and intraocular pressure (IOP) respectively. The complete recovery time of the patients with restlessness (on the command they could open eyes and shaking hands) was also recorded during the extubation. The data were analyzed by using a professional SPSS 15.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

The incidence of cough, restlessness and glossocoma was significantly lower in the propofol group than that in the urapidil group after extubation (P<0.05). There were no episodes of hypotension, laryngospasm, or severe respiratory depression. There was no statistical difference in recovery time between two groups (P>0.05). In propofol group, the BP and HR during extubation and thereafter had no significant difference compared with those before induction, while they were significantly lower than those before giving propofol (P<0.05), and had significant difference compared with those in urapidil group (P<0.05). Compared to preinduction, the BP of urapidil group showed no obvious increase during aspiration and extubation. The HR of urapidil group had little changes after being given urapidil, and it was obviously increased compared with that before induction. The stimulation of aspiration and extubation caused less cough and agitation in propofol group than that in urapidil group (P<0.05). The IOP of propofol group showed no obvious increase during extubation compared with that in preinduction, while in the urpidil group, extubation caused IOP significantly increased (P<0.05). The changes in these indicators between the two groups had no significant difference (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to urapidil, propofol is superior for preventing the cardiovascular and stress responses and IOP increases during emergence and extubation for the ophthalmic patients. Moreover, it has no effects on patient's recovery.

Objectives

To observe procedural sedation practice within a district general hospital emergency department (ED) that uses propofol for procedural sedation.

Methods

Prospective observation of procedural sedation over an 11 month period. Patients over 16 years of age requiring procedural sedation and able to give informed consent were recruited. The choice of sedation agent was at the discretion of the physician. The following details were recorded on a standard proforma for each patient: indication for procedural sedation; agent used; depth and duration of sedation; ease of reduction; use of a reversal agent; complications and reasons for delayed discharge from the ED.

Results

48 patients were recruited; propofol was used in 32 cases and midazolam in 16 cases. The median period of sedation was considerably shorter in the propofol group (3 vs 45 min) but this did not confer a shorter median time in the ED (200 vs 175 min). There were no documented cases of over‐sedation in the propofol group; however, four patients in the midazolam group were over‐sedated, three requiring reversal with flumazenil. There were no other significant complications in either group. There was no difference in the median depth of sedation achieved or ease of reduction between the two groups.

Conclusions

Propofol is effective and safe for procedural sedation in the ED. Propofol has a considerably shorter duration of action than midazolam, thereby shortening the period of sedation.

BACKGROUND:

Supplemental oxygen is routinely given via nasal cannula (NC) to patients undergoing moderate sedation for endoscopy. Some patients complain of profuse rhinorrhea and/or sneezing after the procedure, which results in additional medical costs and patient dissatisfaction.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the causal relationship between the route of oxygen delivery and troublesome nasal symptoms, and to seek possible solutions.

METHODS:

Patients (n=836) were randomly assigned to one of the three following groups: the NC group (n=294), the trimmed NC (TNC) group (n=268) and the nasal mask (NM) group (n=274). All received alfentanil 12.5 μg/kg and midazolam 0.06 mg/kg, and adjunct propofol for sedation. Supplemental oxygen at a flow rate of 4 L/min was used in the NC and TNC groups, and 6 L/min in the NM group. The incidence of nasal symptoms and hypoxia were assessed.

RESULTS:

The incidence of rhinitis symptoms was significantly higher in the NC group (7.1%) than in the TNC (0.4%) and NM (0%) groups (P<0.001). The incidence of hypoxia was lower in the NC group (3.1%) (P=0.040). All hypoxia events were transient (ie, less than 30 s in duration). On spirometry, the mean value of the lowest saturation of peripheral oxygen was found to be significantly lower in the NM group (96.8%) than in the NC group (97.7%) (P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS:

Trimming the NC or using NMs reduced the incidence of rhinitis symptoms; however, the incidence of hypoxia was higher. Further investigation regarding the efficiency of oxygen supplementation is warranted in the design of novel oxygen delivery devices.

AIM: To assess the tolerability and safety of same-day tandem procedures, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under conscious sedation.

METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at Loma Linda University Medical Center, a tertiary-care center. All 54 patients who underwent EUS followed by ERCP (group A) from 2004 to 2006 were included in the study. A second group of 56 patients who underwent EUS only (group B), and a third group of 53 patients who underwent ERCP only (group C) during the same time period were selected consecutively as control groups for comparison.

RESULTS: Conscious sedation was used in 96% of patients in group A. Mean dosages of meperidine and midazolam used in group A were significantly higher than in group B or C. Mean recovery time in group A was not statistically longer than in group B or C. There was no significant difference in the incidence of sedation-related and procedural-related complications.

CONCLUSION: Tandem EUS/ERCP procedure can be safely performed under conscious sedation with minimal adverse events. Combined procedures, however, are associated with higher dosages of sedatives, and slightly longer recovery time.